Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Chemical Industry Seeks More Regulation:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_09-2009_08_15.shtml#1249831282
For years the chemical industry has fought additional federal
regulation. They argued that existing laws, such as the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) were sufficient. Now, however, it
appears they've changed their tune. The [1]Washington Post reports:
For the first time, chemical manufacturers said they are willing to
furnish the Environmental Protection Agency with health and
exposure data they have gathered that are related to their
chemicals, and to allow the agency to determine whether the
chemicals are safe to use.
They said tougher government regulation is the best way to reassure
consumers about the health impact of various chemicals.
"The fundamental duty of the chemical industry and government that
regulates it is to make sure those products are safe," said Cal
Dooley, president and chief executive of the American Chemistry
Council. . . .
Dooley and top executives from several companies, including Dow,
said the industry wants Congress to give the EPA new authority and
resources to ensure the safety of chemicals used in such things as
furniture, cellphones and grocery bags.
What explains the about face? Does this mean the chemical industry has
suddenly turned over a new leaf? I don't think so. Rather, I think
there are several reasons that some chemical companies, particularly
the larger players, may believe that supporting additional federal
regulation is in their interest.
First, the chemical industry is likely responding to the current
political environment. With a Democratic President, Democratic
Congress, and an EPA hostile to cost-benefit analysis, the industry
may believe it is better to have a "place at the table" where it could
influence potential regulations and perhaps seek a compromise. By
supporting new regulatory efforts, industry officials may believe they
are heading off something that could be worse for their interests.
Second, many of the larger firms within the chemical industry believe
federal regulation is preferable to state and local regulation. As the
Post reports:
The industry leaders said they want a strong federal policy
because, in its absence, states and even localities are passing
laws to restrict certain chemicals, making it nearly impossible for
national companies to comply with a patchwork of rules.
"You're seeing more and more activity at the state level in terms
of bans of certain chemicals or states trying to institute their
own chemical management systems," Dooley said. "It's a reflection
of their lack of confidence in the current regulatory system to
assess the safety of those chemicals."
For companies with operations in multiple states, a single federal
standard may be easier to meet than a patchwork of state standards. No
doubt the industry hopes that new federal rules will preempt more
stringent state requirements. If so, increased federal regulation will
actually ease regulation in some jurisdictions, and possibly prevent
the adoption of more stringent measures in the future. Even if new
rules aren't preemptive, they will still place downward pressure on
more stringent rules. As I explain in [2]this article (see pp.
94-106), even non-preemptive federal regulation can have the effect of
reducing the stringency of state-level regulation, particularly over
time.
Third, it's possible that some in the chemical industry see a
competitive advantage in more stringent federal regulation. Regulation
tends to have a more onerous effect on smaller firms. As [3]this Small
Business Administration study reports, per-employee regulatory costs
are significantly higher at smaller firms. Other research has shown
that regulation, including environmental regulation, tends to
disadvantage smaller firms, discourage new entrants, and increase
industry concentration. Federal regulation, in particular, can also
advantage national firms over smaller, local or regional firms and
eliminate any comparative advantage a smaller firm may have in
complying with local rules tailored to local conditions and concerns.
None of this means that new regulations are good or bad. The merits of
each specific regulatory proposal need to be evaluated independently.
But it is yet more reason to reject the simplistic "business vs.
environmental regulation" narrative that so often dominates coverage
of environmental policy. In reality, as I [4]explained here:
the traditional framing of the environmental debate is a false one.
There is no corporate monolith that opposes regulation across the
board, and one can never assume that support for more regulations
comes primarily from those who have the public's well-being at
heart. Environmental policy conflicts are not epic struggles
between white hat public interest crusaders and greedy black hat
corporate interests. Indeed, in the environmental arena, as in most
policy debates, there are few black hats or white hats-most are
shades of gray.
References
1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802566_pf.html
2. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol31_1/adler.pdf
3. http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf
4. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv19n4/v19n4-4.pdf
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
